COA affirms summary judgment on grounds to terminate parental rights and upholds discretionary decision that terminating rights in the best interests of children.
Portage County v. Z.D.R., 2025AP1330 & 20205AP1331, 10/2/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed the circuit court’s orders terminating Z.D.R.’s parental rights to his two children, finding that summary judgment was appropriate regarding grounds to terminate because there was no factual dispute that he abandoned the children, and that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it found that terminating Z.D.R.’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children.
Portage County alleged three grounds in its petition to terminate Z.D.R.’s parental rights to his two children: abandonment, continuing need of protection and services, and failing to assume parental responsibility. The County sought summary judgment on abandonment, which was supported by an affidavit from a case worker stating that Z.D.R. did not have any contact with his children between March 13, 2023, and March 14, 2024. (¶ 3). A continuous three-month period without contact qualifies as abandonment under Wis. Stat. § 48.415(1)(a)2.
Z.D.R. told the circuit court at a hearing on the motion that he wrote approximately two letters to the children during the period in which the County alleged he did not have contact with them. (¶ 4). The circuit court granted summary judgment for the County because, even if Z.D.R. sent two letters, one or more three-month period passed without any contact. (¶ 5). The circuit court later found terminating Z.D.R.’s parental rights in the children’s best interests. (¶ 6).
The COA rejected Z.D.R.’s argument that summary judgment was not warranted. The Court assumed that Z.D.R. sent letters to the children up to three times over the relevant period but concluded “there is no way that two letters sent over the course of one year could be distributed in time such that no three-month period elapsed without any contact, and this is also true if ‘approximately two’ stood for three.” (¶ 9).
Regarding termination, Z.D.R. argued that the circuit court did not adequately consider his biological connection to the children, but the COA refused to question the weight to assign any given fact, which is left to the circuit court’s discretion. (¶ 13).